Scientists Discover the Secret to Keeping Cells Young

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: Time

Researchers say it may be possible to slow and even reverse aging by keeping DNA more stably packed together in our cells

In a breakthrough discovery, scientists report that they have found the key to keeping cells young. In a study published Thursday in Science, an international team, led by Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte at the Salk Institute, studied the gene responsible for an accelerated aging disease known as Werner syndrome, or adult progeria, in which patients show signs of osteoporosis, grey hair and heart disease in very early adulthood.

These patients are deficient in a gene responsible for copying DNA, repairing any mistakes in that replication process, and for keeping track of telomeres, the fragments of DNA at the ends of chromosomes that are like a genetic clock dictating the cell’s life span. Belmonte—together with scientists at the University Catolica San Antonio Murcia and the Institute of Biophysics at the Chinese Academy of Sciences—wanted to understand how the mutated gene triggered aging in cells. So they took embryonic stem cells, which can develop into all of the cells of the human body, and removed this gene. They then watched as the cells aged prematurely, and found that the reason they became older so quickly had to do with how their DNA was packaged.

In order to function properly, DNA is tightly twisted and wound into chromosomes that resemble a rope in the nucleus of cells. Only when the cell is ready to divide does the DNA unwrap itself, and even then, only in small segments at a time. In patients with Werner syndrome, the chromosomes are slightly messier, more loosely stuffed into the nuclei, and that leads to instability that pushes the cell to age more quickly. Belmonte discovered that the Werner gene regulates this chromosome stability. When he allowed the embryonic stem cells that were missing this gene to grow into cells that go on to become bone, muscle and more, he saw that these cells aged more quickly.



Read more: http://time.com/3841620/scientists-discover-the-secret-to-keeping-cells-young/

[Spitfire of ATJ]

1. Wanna bet Cheney is already writing a check?

[valerief]

3. I thought he usually put a gun to the face and got what he wanted. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. What did he want from this guy?

[valerief]

24. To respect his authoritah. nt

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

30. An apology, apparently.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. Same as Iraq.

[DJ13]

2. I would have said Oil Of Olay

[A Simple Game]

4. I thought it was vinegar that fixed everything?

Pomegranate? It's one of those, isn't it?

I'll stay up late tonight and watch the infomercials... get back to you in the morning. You know how it is, sometimes the latest miracle cure changes every day or so.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Okay. The short note.

What do I have to put into my diet, and what do I have to take out?

[former9thward]

6. Both coffee and salt are the answers to both those questions.

According to studies ....

[Baitball Blogger]

15. Hopefully, that's add coffee and remove salt?

[jeff47]

19. No, some say add coffee, some say remove it. Some say add salt, some say remove it. (nt)

[Baitball Blogger]

22. That's clear as mud.

[jeff47]

23. Virtually all nutrition is.

We know what you need to do to avoid malnutrition, like vitamin C to prevent scurvy. We also know you shouldn't eat all fat, or all carbs or all protein.

But we really don't have any good evidence yet of what a "perfect" diet is. We have lots of "good" diets.

And some things, like cancer, have hardly anything to do with diet. With cancer, 60% or more of your chances of getting it are due entirely to genetics

[ronnie624]

26. For the average healthy human,

a diverse diet, with plenty of fruits and vegetables, providing the large variety of compounds necessary for building healthy proteins, along with regular, moderate exercise, is the best approach.

There's really nothing 'muddy' or mysterious about it.

[jeff47]

29. No, it's a good approach. We have no evidence that it is best.

Evidence would require studies, and we don't have the studies to back up the claim of "best".

[former9thward]

27. No.

There have been studies showing coffee and salt are good for you and bad for you. Take your pick....

[ronnie624]

28. The latest research shows

that coffee has many useful compounds, but is potentially harmful to those with underlying health problems, like high blood pressure and heart disease, mainly because of the caffeine. Healthy people however, can consume it, with little or no negative health effects. Also there are better control methods now, to compensate for other factors, like smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise. The studies are not as pat as you seem to be claiming.

[tclambert]

7. Just in time for the Koch brothers to live forever!

Hey, maybe now they will care about global warming.

[Nuh Uh]

8. The secret will remain a secret

As soon as Loreal, Dior, Estee Lauder, Maybelline, MAC. Sephora, Tom Ford, blah, blah, blah, buy up the patents and make sure that people keep buying their products.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Well, I didn't figure that going grey in my 30s was a good sign in terms of longevity.

But I didn't know I should be keeping an eye out for osteoporosis as well.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. so how do I get my DNA to pack more tightly?

[alfredo]

12. Ouzo and pickled octopus.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. Ouzo yes!

not sure about the octopus!

[alfredo]

25. It's pretty good in salads. Ouzo is pretty good in a glass.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

31. Charge 50$ if it is over 50 lbs.

[TexasTowelie]

11. The suspense regarding the topic for the next episode is gone.

[idahoblue]

16. Is this related to

Product B? It supposedly repairs telomeres.

[Peace Patriot]

17. Quick, find another habitable planet!

Cuz, friends, if this is going where it seems to be going, there won't be room for all of us.

Of course, we'll first have to deal with Big Pharma and the (oh, say) $50,000 per pill price they'll put on the new anti-aging drug. I'm quite sure that Medicare won't cover it, nor certainly any of the private insurers (except at an astronomical premium and deductible). The old will have to initiate black markets and clone drugs. That'll be interesting--jailing all the old folks. Maybe it will replace the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs" for keeping the "prison-industrial complex" in clover. Old people trading in pills. Tsk, tsk! Lock 'em up! Break their necks! Shoot 'em in the back as their wheelchairs run away. Or...

...find another habitable planet--and do it quickly, before Corporate trashes this one.

Living forever, or for a very long time, has been on the horizon since DNA was decoded. That horizon is now next door. Think what it will mean. THINK what it will mean!

I don't think that it's any coincidence that, just as the population has begun living longer, and just as the "boomers" hit old age, euthanasia has come back as a public topic, and has actually been legalized in a few places. Of course, few people want to live 10 or 20 years in constant pain, or cruelly disabled, or deteriorating from Alzheimer's. Some people have good reason to want to end their lives--with dignity, of their own will. They should have that right, of course--but I do worry about what Corporate does with our rights.

We have the right to vote, for instance--but now all our votes are 'counted electronically, using 'TRADE SECRET' code--code that we are forbidden by law to review, code that is owned and controlled largely by ONE, PRIVATE, FAR RIGHTWING-CONNECTED corporation (ES&S, which bought out Diebold). So much for that right. It has been privatized. (And look at the result--a Congress full of fascist nutballs with a single-digit approval rating!) Our right to petition our government? Ha-ha-ha-ha. Our right of free speech? Corporate has, a) appropriated it, and b) gained control of the (once public) airwaves (--not yet the internet, not for lack of trying). What will they do with the "right to die"?

Anyway, a reputable science lab discovering how to slow or reverse aging by manipulating DNA is serious food for thought, like almost nothing else--comparable, say, to contact with an alien civilization beneath the ice on Ganymede, or on one of the thousands of planets being found around other stars.

A game-changer, big time. We have no rules for this, and no plans (that I know of--NASA might have some plans!). What are we going to do if people start living for 500 yearsr? Or even if a significant number of people start living for 100 years (now a rarity). It's mind-boggling. Earth cannot sustain her present human population at current levels of consumption, deforestation and pollution. That population is already growing by leaps and bounds. Add much longer lives, and the Earth will collapse. No question about it. So maybe the answer IS that only billionaires get renovated DNA.

Ha-ha. Just kidding. The "boomer' wheelchair brigade will storm that castle, for sure.

[seveneyes]

18. Memory is being

That which no longer be, has no memory ...

#

[jeff47]

20. They got their science a little wrong in the article

In order to function properly, DNA is tightly twisted and wound into chromosomes that resemble a rope in the nucleus of cells. Only when the cell is ready to divide does the DNA unwrap itself, and even then, only in small segments at a time.

This part is wrong.

DNA is "lightly" packed most of the time, with small pieces unwound in order to make RNA or copy it. DNA is packed tightly into chromosomes only for cell division.

If a cell isn't undergoing division, the DNA isn't packed tight enough to see chromosomes in a microscope.

When they do tests like amniocentesis, they treat the sample with a chemical that keeps the chromosomes from separating into the new cells, which is what allows them to see the chromosomes for the test.

[The2ndWheel]

33. It's never been about should

Can or can't, that's it. Morality is subjective. Can a human fly, or travel at 50mph? Of course not. Physically not possible, but we found a way around that. So I guess technically, we can. We, the human animal, don't. But we can.

We find a way around limits. That's what we do. Death is just the biggest and most fundamental limit we know of. It's the reason we've done what we've done up to this point. Whether it's killing other people to get their stuff, or not wanting other people to die(this one being why we have 7+ billion people on the planet), death hasn't just been the prime motivator, but the understanding of what death is, is an even larger motivating factor. No form of life wants to die, that's why they fight against it as best they can.

We won't ask if humans should be living longer. Again, morals mean nothing. Right, wrong, both meaningless. If we can, we will, and then we'll try and deal with the inevitable problems that come from that in some form or another, which won't really solve anything, but will then create the next problem that we have to try to solve, which we won't really do, etc, etc. That's pretty much what human history is.